|
|
Post by soundsofsaratoga on Aug 16, 2019 5:56:49 GMT -5
I know it was only for 4th place, but did anybody else think that the 3 should have come down. He came out at least 3 paths cuts the 2 off and impedes the 5 close to the wire. They take Chris Landeros down a couple of weeks ago for almost the same thing. I know it is all about costing a horse a placing but what about fairness to bettors that play the superficial. Just in my opinion think there may have been some preferential treatment since it was IRAD.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenfurlongs on Aug 16, 2019 7:06:49 GMT -5
I used the 3 in the ninth so I was watching the stretch run live. When Irad pulled out sharply to his right you could see Dylan Davis take up on the 2, and then Irad looked back after the fact. Seeing it live, had the 3 gone on to win, I would have been hanging my head expecting to be taken down. Dylan's horse was tiring, so it would be hard to say it cost him a placing. I don't think the 5 was moving forward either at that point. Maybe jocks don't like to be the ones to claim foul on their colleagues, they expect the stewards to do it. Dylan should have claimed if he thought it cost him money, nobody would have argued it, but we don't know the dynamics inside the jockeys' room.
TW |
|
propro
UpInClass Member
Posts: 921
|
Post by propro on Aug 16, 2019 9:29:21 GMT -5
I agree with Tom. Two was done and was the only one truly interfered with. 2 never made contact with 5, who simply shied away slightly from what was going on inside. The head on replay shows it pretty clearly on nyra.com. In the olden days, before the crystal ball and the magic 8 ball were both implemented as tools the stewards can use to decide if a foul is really a foul, he would have come down and Ortiz would have been given a vacation.
|
|
.jpg)
